| Literature DB >> 27093542 |
Abstract
This letter investigates the MHD three-dimensional flow of upper-convected Maxwell (UCM) fluid over a bi-directional stretching surface by considering the Cattaneo-Christov heat flux model. This model has tendency to capture the characteristics of thermal relaxation time. The governing partial differential equations even after employing the boundary layer approximations are non linear. Accurate analytic solutions for velocity and temperature distributions are computed through well-known homotopy analysis method (HAM). It is noticed that velocity decreases and temperature rises when stronger magnetic field strength is accounted. Penetration depth of temperature is a decreasing function of thermal relaxation time. The analysis for classical Fourier heat conduction law can be obtained as a special case of the present work. To our knowledge, the Cattaneo-Christov heat flux model law for three-dimensional viscoelastic flow problem is just introduced here.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27093542 PMCID: PMC4836741 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Geometry of the problem.
Fig 2ℏ− curves for the functions f(η), g(η) and θ(η).
Convergence of HAM solutions for different orders of approximations when β = γ = 0.25, Pr = 1, M = λ = 0.5 and ℏ = −0.8.
| 5 | -1.31282 | -0.57423 | -0.71696 |
| 10 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71497 |
| 15 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71492 |
| 20 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71491 |
| 25 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71491 |
| 30 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71491 |
| 35 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71491 |
| 40 | -1.31296 | -0.57435 | -0.71491 |
Fig 3Effect of β on f′(η).
Fig 12Effect of λ on θ(η).
Values of wall temperature gradient θ′(0) for different value of β, γ, M when ℏ = −0.8 Pr = 1 and λ = 0.5.
| 0 | 0.25 | 0.5 | -0.75689 |
| 0.2 | -0.72298 | ||
| 0.4 | -0.69171 | ||
| 0.6 | -0.66313 | ||
| 0.25 | 0 | -0.67657 | |
| 0.2 | -0.70680 | ||
| 0.4 | -0.74072 | ||
| 0.6 | -0.77877 | ||
| 0.25 | 0 | -0.74203 | |
| 0.5 | -0.71491 | ||
| 1 | -0.64859 |
Fig 4Effect of β on g′(η).
Fig 5Effect of λ on f′(η).
Fig 6Effect of λ on g′(η).
Fig 7Effect of M on f′(η).
Fig 8Effect of M on g′(η).
Fig 9Effect of M on θ(η).
Fig 10Effect of Pr and γ on θ(η).
Fig 11Effect of γ on θ(η).